There goes 2 hours that I should have been using to study for a math exam on monday

I'm not 100% sure how the American banking or money creation system works, so its hard for me to comment on it.

Over to the financial hitman. He might have been talking about a lot of things that seems likely. But he was not believable. One who before worked as a guy who bribed world leaders and see them be assassinated, who then go uncensored on camera telling about it "exposing" it all. And in the end, also comes in to explain how the new system would work.

I've heard about the Venus project from a friend of mine who is a strong believer in it. We only discussed it once though. My main problem is that they use terrible facts. Saying that 3 states could support half the nation, without clearly sayign that it would require them to build in every spot where it would blows. And I live in a country who have some windmills. Everyone want them, but no one want them near them. The same can be said for geo-thermal power, power from waterfalls and power from the tidalwaves. And the cost of buying all of that space would be imense, but ofcoarse, there is no money in their system. And I've discussed this with a friend of mine who is quite far left, how would you make people work? They won't have to to get food, electrisiy, a house or anything else. They say there will be new incentive, but thats pure guessing. They didn't mention one reasonable new incentive. Who would fix the machines if they broke down or do the other jobs the machines can't do? I know that you Allen want mechanics to take over much of my job, but even you have to admit that the human mind is greater then any computer out there.

And no laws?How naive are these people?

_________________

Code:

http://battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=4690Thank you Michael http://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=15076Thank you developers(^-check out the topics)

Over to the financial hitman. He might have been talking about a lot of things that seems likely. But he was not believable. One who before worked as a guy who bribed world leaders and see them be assassinated, who then go uncensored on camera telling about it "exposing" it all. And in the end, also comes in to explain how the new system would work.

True. But he did say he received threats and what not and even wrote a book - Confessions of a financial hitman.

Quote:

I've heard about the Venus project from a friend of mine who is a strong believer in it. We only discussed it once though. My main problem is that they use terrible facts. Saying that 3 states could support half the nation, without clearly sayign that it would require them to build in every spot where it would blows. And I live in a country who have some windmills. Everyone want them, but no one want them near them. The same can be said for geo-thermal power, power from waterfalls and power from the tidalwaves. And the cost of buying all of that space would be imense, but ofcoarse, there is no money in their system. And I've discussed this with a friend of mine who is quite far left, how would you make people work? They won't have to to get food, electrisiy, a house or anything else. They say there will be new incentive, but thats pure guessing. They didn't mention one reasonable new incentive. Who would fix the machines if they broke down or do the other jobs the machines can't do? I know that you Allen want mechanics to take over much of my job, but even you have to admit that the human mind is greater then any computer out there.

And no laws?How naive are these people?

You are bang on target there. I initially felt a bit convinced until they talked about the Venus project. Today, these guys say the monetary system makes people slaves. And propose a resource based economy. Who is to say these guys wont control these resources, technology etc and play god? In the end it seemed to be a Marxist propaganda, where a few "elite" would control society, and people would live in fake utopia, like we have seen in many hollywood movies like Equilibrium. lol. And how do we know they are not trying to sell something to us much like every other capitalist organization? How do we know these guys are not unethical like they claim to be?

I agree the zeitgeist films are badly flawed, but they raise some good points if poorly...

simmen wrote:

And I've discussed this with a friend of mine who is quite far left, how would you make people work? They won't have to to get food, electrisiy, a house or anything else. They say there will be new incentive, but thats pure guessing. They didn't mention one reasonable new incentive.

There are a number of classic responses to this, but I feel a starting point is an analysis of our own situation. Even though we live in a world where status is largely material, and success is at least partially tied to finance, we still have different motivations when choosing a career.

There are those who work in roles such as health care and teaching who could (given their educational background) seek greater financial rewards and the material wealth this brings, if they were to opt for another career. This is also true of those in charitable work.

Essentially, all I am saying is that people have a motivation for a level of comfort, sure, but over and above that, some choose status, other altruism. Why else do people work harder jobs than they have to? Why give to charity? Why volunteer? Those things happen. By elevating everyone out of a state of economic compulsion you massively broaden the opportunities for others to realise themselves in this way.

One might even argue that in the absence of the selling of one's labour for material wealth, that a new status system may arise based up the volunteering of one's labour. There is already the seeds of this existing within our society.

Quote:

Who would fix the machines if they broke down or do the other jobs the machines can't do? I know that you Allen want mechanics to take over much of my job, but even you have to admit that the human mind is greater then any computer out there.

This is compatible with any notion of human nature you may have. If I have the skills and ability to make something far more tolerable for my fellow man then I will do so. Just as I will help bump start the car of a stranger. The difference being that my own interests are directly vested in the functioning of those machines and in perpetuating a society whereby co-operation and aid are readily given. It is more like asking 'who would help bail out a sinking boat' and the answer is almost anyone who could.

Quote:

And no laws?How naive are these people?

We did survive longer with out formal laws than we have with them so far, albeit in a very different manner. We certainly existed far longer without police than we have with this novel new invention.

By removing the delivery of justice and decision making from the general populace you play a dangerous game. You depoliticise them, making them less capable of retaking this role. You also solve the problem of 'human nature' by relying upon a select group of humans who are just as vulnerable to this alleged nature.

Just as courts are run locally, so it can continue, but with direct community involvement. What is the incentive you may ask? Well because without community involvement there will be no safeguarding against crime.

That said, most crimes are related to ownership, and by providing a standard of living you do certainly reduce the incentive for criminal activity. As you do by reducing inequality.

Right this has been a rambling response to only a couple of points and I need to stock up the New Year's wine cellar. I shall look forward to further discourse on this point. I did not know this forum existed

Whatever job people choose, they dont do it because they love what they do (most of the time), but probably because it is the most practical(for them). You start doing something, you gain experience and then you continue doing it and work toward new incentives. This is how things are. You have your hardships, you might even hate your job, but you continue doing it because you have certain personal goals that you would like to achieve in life. And money is an essential part in all of those, and therefore you work toward monetary incentives.

The Zeitgeist theory, attempts to change this system. They dont want a system where money is an incentive. Instead, they wanna do away with the whole monetary system and create a resource based society where research and development, scientific endeavours etc would take priority. We wouldnt have stock markets, accountants, taxes, debt, loans etc

The downside to this is its motive. Today, such theories have come up only because money is controlled by a select few. This creates an imbalance of power where the rich grow richer, and the poor get poorer. The Zeitgeist theory could create this same imbalance by controlling resources, instead of money. It could even be far more dangerous than controlling money itself. Atleast with money you have bargaining power, but if resources are controlled, especially technology to harness certain resources are controlled by a certain someone, I believe thats far more power than controlling money as such. I believe that would lead to some sort of dystopian society like we see in science fiction movies. lol.

Quote:

We did survive longer with out formal laws than we have with them so far, albeit in a very different manner. We certainly existed far longer without police than we have with this novel new invention.

By removing the delivery of justice and decision making from the general populace you play a dangerous game. You depoliticise them, making them less capable of retaking this role. You also solve the problem of 'human nature' by relying upon a select group of humans who are just as vulnerable to this alleged nature.

Just as courts are run locally, so it can continue, but with direct community involvement. What is the incentive you may ask? Well because without community involvement there will be no safeguarding against crime.

That said, most crimes are related to ownership, and by providing a standard of living you do certainly reduce the incentive for criminal activity. As you do by reducing inequality.

I agree with this. Most crimes, not including the ones committed by rapists, psycopaths and degenerates (cuz these crimes will always exist, whether we have law enforcement or not), are committed because of need or excessive competition. Improve standard of living and reduce competition to survive, then yes these crimes will drastically reduce. This is where the Zeitgeist theory becomes appealing. But the question we have to ask ourselves is - by adopting such a theory are we actually digging a bigger hole for ourselves?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum